Trump plans to sign EO ending birthright citizenship

[TJustice]

That is the extreme irony about the situation.
The citizens you want would be the ones who come here to work illegally. Not the ones who come because their family can get them on the dole.

I am going to start a thread on this.

Of course not.

The ONLY reason immigrants want "birth right citizenship"... is so they can suck tit on the American tax payer. (The sure as HELL don't want it in any African country!)

 

[Scataphagos]

That is the extreme irony about the situation.
The citizens you want would be the ones who come here to work illegally. Not the ones who come because their family can get them on the dole.

I am going to start a thread on this.

Big hole in his argument... "Illegals don't get welfare benefits at American tax payer expense." Oh, really??

 

[UsualName]

What you calling my parents liars?

At the moment the lineage question remains unasked, but it is recorded on the certificate. Also my parents place of birth was asked when applying for passport, I would assume the government verified this info?

I refer to my earlier post, the current interpretation of birthright is not the original intent.

I would argue it is the original intent but that congress has authority over jurisdiction.

I will say it again, discontinuing birthright citizenship invalidates the majority of Americans as legal citizens.

 

[TJustice]

Friedman had been dead a while. Immigration was different then.

Big hole in his argument... "Illegals don't get welfare benefits at American tax payer expense." Oh, really??

 

[Cuddles]

I would argue it is the original intent but that congress has authority over jurisdiction.

I will say it again, discontinuing birthright citizenship invalidates the majority of Americans as legal citizens.

It would have to be grandfathered in.... Otherwise you'd have to invalidate the citizenship of anyone that couldn't trace their ancestry to Ellis island.

 

[UsualName]

It would have to be grandfathered in.... Otherwise you'd have to invalidate the citizenship of anyone that couldn't trace their ancestry to Ellis island.

And that’s the rub. Theoretically, Trump can not make a law that says parentage is the deciding factor in citizenship, even though there are exclusions that allow for a parentage claim.

So if birthright is a law of negative rights, meaning the government has no authority in the area, then a constitutional amendment would be needed to not invalidate all of our citizenship.

 

[UsualName]

Big hole in his argument... "Illegals don't get welfare benefits at American tax payer expense." Oh, really??

Really. Their children may get welfare benefits but they would have to be citizens to get the benefits.

 

[TreeFrogTrader]

I would argue it is the original intent but that congress has authority over jurisdiction.

I will say it again, discontinuing birthright citizenship invalidates the majority of Americans as legal citizens.

No.

 

[Wallet]

It would have to be grandfathered in.... Otherwise you'd have to invalidate the citizenship of anyone that couldn't trace their ancestry to Ellis island.

To me this falls under ex post facto.
Once Citizenship has been granted it will not be revoked. But proceeding forward everyone would have to qualify (what ever that would be). Then the question arises what to do with DACA and those already seeking legitimate citizenship in the system.

Regardless of which side of the line you stand the status quo is unacceptable. The line has to be drawn at some point and said no more. Where we draw that line and who will be included should be the debate, not do we continue this open border crap.

 

[UsualName]

To me this falls under ex post facto.
Once Citizenship has been granted it will not be revoked. But proceeding forward everyone would have to qualify (what ever that would be). Then the question arises what to do with DACA and those already seeking legitimate citizenship in the system.

Regardless of which side of the line you stand the status quo is unacceptable. The line has to be drawn at some point and said no more. Where we draw that line and who will be included should be the debate, not do we continue this open border crap.

So your saying if the Supreme Court overturns same sex marriage all the same sex marriages stay on the books?